Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 2160 (KAR)

Veena Karanth v. State Of Karnataka

2020-11-03

SURAJ GOVINDARAJ

body2020
JUDGMENT Suraj Govindaraj, J. - Sri Sudesh Kumar Acharya U, learned counsel for the petitioners seeks time to comply with office objections. But however, requests this Court to take up the matter due to urgency. Acceding to his request, pending such compliances the matter is taken up. 2. Smt. Rashmi Jadhav, learned HCGP accepts notice for respondent No.1. Since the petition is being disposed of at the stage of Admission, I am of the opinion that there is no requirement of service of notice to respondent No.2, since no orders are passed against respondent No.2. 3. The petitioners are before this Court seeking for quashing of the proceedings in Crime No. 67/2020 registered by the Manipal Polcie Station pending on the file of II Additional Civil Judge (Jr.Dn) and JMFC, Udupi punishable under Sections 341, 323 & 506 R/w 34 of IPC. 4. The petitioners and respondent No.2-complainant are stated to be neighbours inasmuch as the petitioners are residing in Flat No.307 and 308 where as respondent No.2 is residing in Flat No.306. 5. The petitioners on 21.02.2020 at 19.00 hours filed a complaint alleging that respondent No.2 and her husband have unauthorizedly removed the chappal stand placed out side of their flat. On enquiry, respondent No.2 and her husband had assaulted petitioner No.2 and her husband. The said complaint has been registered as Crime No.66/2020 by the Manipal Police Station, Udupi Sub Division. 6. Respondent No.2 as on 21.02.2020 at 21.29 hours filed a complaint which has registered as 67/2020 by the very same Manipal Police Station, Udupi Sub Division. Wherein respondent No.2 has alleged that on 21.02.2020 when respondent NO.2 complained about placing of the chappal stand by the petitioners and the husband of respondent No.2 shifted the chappal stand there was an altercation between the petitioners, respondent No.2 and her husband. It is in this regard, the aforesaid complaint which is the subject matter of the present petition has been filed. 7. Sri Sudesh Kumar Acharya, learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the second complaint in Crime No.67/2020 is a counter blast to the earlier complaint filed in Crime No.66/2020 by the petitioners. On this basis, he submits that when the complaint of the petitioners is under investigation, there is no requirement for separate complaint to be filed by respondent No.2 and or a separate investigation in relation thereto. 8. On this basis, he submits that when the complaint of the petitioners is under investigation, there is no requirement for separate complaint to be filed by respondent No.2 and or a separate investigation in relation thereto. 8. Having considered the allegations made in the complaint filed by the petitioners as also the allegation made in the complaint filed by respondent No.2, the admitted facts are that the petitioners and respondent No.2 are neighbours and on 21.02.2020 there was a altercation between the petitioners and respondent No.2 and her husband on account of dispute as regards the placing of chappal stand and or location of chappal stand of the petitioners. The petitioners have also filed a complaint and have set criminal law in motion as against respondent No.2 and her husband. Though the complaint of respondent No.2 is subsequent by 3 hours to that filed by petitioners, I am of the considered opinion that both the complaints arising out of same incident would have to be investigated by the jurisdictional police who have registered both the complaints namely Manipal Police Staiton. In view of the same, Manipal Police Station Udupi Sub division is directed to investigate the Crime Nos.66 and 67 of 2020 together. 9. Sri Sudesh Kumar Acharya submits that petitioners are both doctors working in Manipal hospital, the jurisdictional police have sought to visit the hospital to conduct so called investigation. He submits that the hospital not being the place of occurrence of the alleged offence and not being relatable to the offence in any manner there would no requirement for jurisdictional police to visit the hospital where the petitioners are working. The said submission merit consideration. The Jurisdictional police is directed not to visit the Manipal hospital where the petitioners are working and if petitioners are required to be interrogated or questioned, the same can be done at the residence of the petitioners and or at the police Station. The petition is disposed of in view of the above.